Greek Bible Study

Here's a new site for learning biblical Greek, called Greek Bible Study.

The graduated reader ability is especially cool. Select which chapters of Mounce you have covered, and the biblical text has ellipses for the words not learned yet. It will be better if they can eventually add all word frequencies to this function.


And I really like their philosophy of ministry and motivation...

The site is privately funded. It is not affiliated with any particular denomination or group, so that it might remain theologically neutral, encouraging the reading of the Scriptures themselves, God's Holy Word.

This work is being done as a service to the body of Christ at large, to the glory of God. May our prayer to God be: please teach us Your Word.

Another tool to help "everyday be Greek day"! (in the words of Scott Hafemann)

Jesus' Resurrection is "Unbelievable" in Luke

As I mentioned in my previous post about Jesus’ resurrection, Luke emerges as the only gospel writer that presents the disciples’ response as one of amazement, that confused mixture of disbelief and joy. But…

…if there is joy, is there really disbelief? Or, is it possible that Luke uses the word ‘disbelieving’ in ch. 24 in a more idiomatic sense? After all, if you were to see Jesus raised from the dead, wouldn’t you have to say, “It’s unbelievable! I can’t believe my eyes!”

In Luke, the first post-resurrection response occurs after the women come back from the empty tomb (24:11). After giving a report of what they had seen and heard at the tomb, the text reads…

καὶ ἐφάνησαν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν ὡσεὶ λῆρος τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα, καὶ ἠπίστουν αὐταῖς.
And these words appeared before them as nonsense, and they were not believing them.

But what exactly does it mean when it says “these words appeared before them as nonsense” and “they were not believing them”? Could the disciples really not make grammatical sense of the women’s words? That much must not be true; otherwise, the text would not go on to say that they were not believing them. In order to not believe something, you have to first make sense of what you’re not believing. Therefore, it’s more likely that “these words appeared before them as nonsense” communicates just how unusual and unexpected the resurrection was. It was so out of the ordinary that we might describe it today as “unreal”!

So did the apostles really not believe the women? Did they think the women were just making up a fantastic story? Perhaps. However, the imperfect tense here—“they were not believing”—leaves open further possibilities.

In the very least, the imperfect tense communicates some kind of continuous response instead of a matter-of-fact statement of unbelief. The continuous nature of their “unbelief” suggests an ongoing discussion in which they were interacting with the women’s story. It may depict an interactive response from the disciples in which they continuously questioned the women in an attempt to understand the incredible details of such an amazing account. Also possible, but perhaps less likely, is that this represents a pluperfect use of the imperfect—“they had not been believing them”—thus describing an earlier response that did not necessarily continue. The reason I say that this possibility is less likely is that the pluperfect use of the imperfect is quite rare, and it is usually clear when it is used. Even if this interpretation is too much of a stretch for this particular word, the continuation of the story suggests that this is exactly what happened—their unbelieving response did not continue.

The next verse (24:12) tells how Peter got up and ran to the tomb, hardly a response from someone who did not believe. Peter’s actions at least reveal a determination to check out the women’s story. Of course, some would argue that Luke 24:12 is a “western non-interpolation,” a verse that was later added by all but the western witnesses of the text—an argument against its existence in the original text. One argument in support of this theory is that Peter’s response in vs. 12 of running to the tomb and returning home “amazed” does not fit within the literary context (Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 215, 217). But the supposed incongruency of unbelief and amazement occurs again in Luke 24:41 (Frans Neirynck, “Luke 24,12: An Anti-Docetic Interpolation?” In New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis, ed. A. Denaux, 158)…

ἔτι δὲ ἀπιστούντων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς χαρᾶς καὶ θαυμαζόντων εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, Ἔχετέ τι βρώσιμον ἐνθάδε;
While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?”

Again, Luke’s record of the resurrection seems just too good to be true. Again, we find “unbelief” and “amazement” together. And joy too. So what can it mean? Does it make sense at all to say that the apostles “could not believe because of their joy and amazement”? Or do these passages suggest a more idiomatic meaning for unbelief? Had Jesus really risen from the dead? It was “unbelievable”! In Luke 24:11 they could not believe their ears. In Luke 24:41 they could not believe their eyes. But they really did believe the unbelievable. Their joy proves it.

So does Luke use the words ‘unbelief’, ‘amazement’ and ‘joy’ together to paint a uniform picture of emotion-filled belief in the resurrection for everyone in ch. 24? No way.

When Jesus walks with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, it’s a different story regarding "unbelief" and "amazement." They tell him how the women “amazed us” with a report of an empty tomb and a vision of angels saying that Jesus was alive (24:22-23), but they were clearly “looking sad” (24:17). This sad look proves their unbelief. And so Jesus says to them in 24:25…

Ὦ ἀνόητοι καὶ βραδεῖς τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ πιστεύειν ἐπὶ πᾶσιν οἷς ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται… O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken…

Only after Jesus explains the scriptures, accepts their invitation to come inside, and then breaks bread do they finally recognize him and believe. Their belief is proved by their action: they got up that very hour—the same hour which they had described as “towards evening” and “the day is nearly over” (24:29)—and they returned to Jerusalem to tell the apostles. They surely went back in the dark. But before they can give their report, the apostles report to them in 24:34…

ὄντως ἠγέρθη ὁ κύριος καὶ ὤφθη Σίμωνι.
The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.

Even though it was only Simon Peter who had seen the Lord among the 11 apostles, the others believe and say that he has “really risen.” Their belief is then confirmed by the two who had met Jesus on the road to Emmaus (24:35) and then by Jesus himself who appeared before them while they were still talking about it (24:36). And then we find another combination of belief and amazement in 24:37…

πτοηθέντες δὲ καὶ ἔμφοβοι γενόμενοι ἐδόκουν πνεῦμα θεωρεῖν.
But after being startled and frightened they were thinking that they were seeing a spirit.

Interesting. Based on Peter’s testimony, they really believed that Jesus was alive. But when Jesus himself appears, they are so startled and frightened that they think they are seeing a spirit. But again, does this really mean that they do not believe in the resurrection? Jesus does not rebuke them for ‘unbelief’, but he says…

Τί τεταραγμένοι ἐστὲ καὶ διὰ τί διαλογισμοὶ ἀναβαίνουσιν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν;
Why are you troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

The live appearance of Jesus after his death is such an unusual sight for the apostles, so Jesus begins to calm them by simply acting himself. “What’s bothering you?” He shows them his wounded hands and feet to prove that they are not seeing a spirit. Oh, and “What’s there to eat?”

And now he had a captive audience…

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”

After a few more instructions, Jesus is lifted up into heaven. But no more fear and amazement on the part of the disciples, only worship and joy...

καὶ αὐτοὶ προσκυνήσαντες αὐτὸν ὑπέστρεψαν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ μετὰ χαρᾶς μεγάλης καὶ ἦσαν διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ εὐλογοῦντες τὸν θεόν.
And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising God.

Luke's account of the resurrection is so believeable precisely because he records so well that strange mixture of unbelief and joy, which really isn't unbelief at all, but overwhelming joy and amazement at something so "unbelieveable." He really caught the wonder of it.

(The painting is "The Supper at Emmaus," 1606 by Caravaggio)

Forthcoming Titles on the Letter of James

Here are a number of forthcoming titles, including several conference papers, on the Letter of James...

Varner, William. Forthcoming in 2007. “Can Discourse Analysis Help Solve the Problem of James’ Structure?” Paper to be presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 14, San Diego, CA.


Lockett, Darian R. Forthcoming in 2007. “The 'Two Ways': James' Strategy of Instruction in Obedience.” Paper to be presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 14, San Diego, CA.

Morgan, Chris. Forthcoming in 2007. “The Doctrine of God in the Epistle of James.” Paper to be presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 14, San Diego, CA.


Kotsko, Adam. Forthcoming in 2007. "Philosophical Reading Beyond Paul: Jean-Luc Nancy on the Epistle of James." Paper to be presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 18, San Diego, CA.

Lockett, Darian R. Forthcoming in 2007. “God and 'the World': Cosmology and Theology in the Letter of James.” In Cosmology and New Testament Theology, eds. Jonathan T. Pennington and Sean M. McDonough. London: T&T Clark.

Lockett, Darian R. Forthcoming in 2008. Purity and Worldview in the Epistle of James. The Library of New Testament Studies. London: T & T Clark.

Morgan, Chris, and ???. Forthcoming in 2007. James. Focus on the Bible Commentary. Christian Focus Publications.

The following title in [brackets] is my own guess for this forthcoming commentary that will be part of a new commentary series published by Brill and edited by Stanley Porter. The series itself may have a title something like A Linguistic Commentary of the New Testament...

Varner, William. Forthcoming in 2008. [A Discourse Linguistic Commentary on the Letter of James. A Linguistic Commentary of the New Testament], ed. Stanley Porter. Leiden: Brill.

More Letter of James Research from the Last 8 Years

The second part of Matti Myllykoski's “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship" has just come out in Currents in Biblical Research.

I thought I'd use this as an opportunity to post other recent James scholarship that I failed to post last month in my posts on Recent Letter of James Research or More With Less Recent James Research or Doubts, Disputes and Distinctions of διακρίνω or Mariam Kamell's Recent James Research.

I am no longer adding these works to the RECENT JAMES RESEARCH heading on this blog down and to the right. I will eventually have everything compiled in a more useable format.

Myllykoski, Matti. 2007. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part II).” Currents in Biblical Research, 6:11-98.

Lockett, Darian R. 2007. “'Unstained by the World': Purity and Pollution as an Indicator of Cultural Interaction in the Epistle of James.” In Reading James with New Eyes, ed. Robert L. Webb and John S. Kloppenborg, 49-74. London: T&T Clark.

Taylor, Mark E., and George H. Guthrie. 2006. “The Structure of James.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 68:681-705.

Abegg, Martin G., Jr. 2006. “Paul and James on the Law in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” In Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. John J. Collins and Craig A. Evans, 63-74. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Byron, John. 2006. “Living in the Shadow of Cain: Echoes of a Developing Tradition in James 5:1-6.” Novum Testamentum, 48:261-74.

Myllykoski, Matti. 2006. “James the Just in History and Tradition: Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I).” Currents in Biblical Research, 5:73-122.

Taylor, Mark E. 2006. A Text-linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James. Library of New Testament Studies 311 (London: Clark).

McCord Adams, Marilyn. 2006. “Faith and Works, or, How James is a Lutheran!” Expository Times, 117:462-64.

De Graaf, David. 2005. “Some Doubts About Doubt: The New Testament Use of Διακρίνω,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48: 733-755.

Batten, Alicia. 2005. “Ideological Strategies in the Letter of James.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19-22, Philadelphia, PA.

Kloppenborg, John S. 2005. “Reception and Emulation of the Jesus Tradition in James.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19-22, Philadelphia, PA.

Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm. 2005. “A Letter from Jerusalem: James in the Mind of the Recipients of His Epistle.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19-22, Philadelphia, PA.

Wachob, Wesley Hiram. 2005. “The Languages of ‘Household’ and ‘Kingdom’ in the Epistle of James: A Socio-Rhetorical Study.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19-22, Philadelphia, PA.

Watson, Duane F. 2005. “A Reassessment of the Rhetoric of the Epistle of James and Its Implications for Christian Origins.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19-22, Philadelphia, PA.

Guthrie, George H. 2005. “James.” In Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, ed. Tremper Longman, III and David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Lockett, Darian R. 2005. "The Spectrum of Wisdom and Eschatology in the Epistle of James and 4QInstruction," Tyndale Bulletin 56: 131-148.

Lockett, Darian R. 2005. “'Pure and Undefiled Religion': Purity and Pollution as a Means of Cultural Antagonism in the Epistle of James.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19-22, Philadelphia, PA.

Evans, Craig A., and Darian R. Lockett. 2005. “James.” In Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation, ed. Craig A. Evans, 257-287. Colorado Springs, CO: Victor.

Popkes, Wiard. 2005. “Two interpretations of ‘justification’ in the New Testament: Reflections on Galatians 2:15-21 and James 2:21-25.” Studia Theologica, 59:129-46.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 2005. "Catholic Christologies in the Catholic Epistles." In Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Lockett, Darian R. 2004. “James' Intertextual Perspective on Perfection.” Paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society National Meeting, November, San Antonio, TX.

Taylor, Mark E. 2004. “Recent Scholarship on the Structure of James.” Currents in Biblical Research, 3:86-115.

Baker, William R. 2004. “Wisdom in the Epistle of James and the Holy Spirit: Are They the Same?” Paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, November, San Antonio, TX.

Baker, William R. 2003. “The Priority of God in the Epistle of James.” Paper presented to the Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, November 20, 2003, Atlanta, GA.

Ng, Esther Yue L. 2003. "Father-God Language and Old Testament Allusions in James," Tyndale Bulletin, 54:41-54.

Jackson-McCabe, Matt. 2003. “The Messiah Jesus in the Mythic World of James.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 122:701-30.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. 2003. "Reading Wisdom Wisely." Louvain Studies, 28:99-112.

Spencer, Matthew, Klaus Wachtel, and Christopher J. Howe. 2002. “The Greek Vorlage of the Syra Harclensis: A Comparative Study on Method in Exploring Textual Genealogy.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism, 7 [http://purl.org/TC] (http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol07/SWH2002/).

Albl, Martin C. 2002. “‘Are Any among You Sick?’: The Health Care System in the Letter of James.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 121:123-43.

Baker, William R. 2002. "Christology in the Epistle of James," Evangelical Quarterly, 74: 47-57.

Warden, Duane. 2000. "The Rich And Poor In James: Implications For Institutionalized Partiality," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 43: 247-257.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. 2000. “An introduction to the Letter of James.” Review and Expositor, 97:155-67. Also in Brother of Jesus, Friend of God, 24-38. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans (2004).

Schreiner, Thomas R. 2000. “Practical Christianity.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:2-3.

Stein, Robert H. 2000. “‘Saved by Faith [Alone]' in Paul Versus ‘Not Saved by Faith Alone’ in James.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:4-19.

George, Timothy. 2000. “‘A Right Strawy Epistle’: Reformation Perspectives on James.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:20-31. Previously published in Review
and Expositor, 83 (Summer 1986): 369-382.

Seifrid, Mark A. 2000. “The Waiting Church and Its Duty: James 5:13-18.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:32-39.

Julian, Ron. 2000. “A Perfect Work: Trials and Sanctification in the Book of James.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:40-50.

McCartney, Dan G. 2000. “The Wisdom of James the Just.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:52-64.

Akin, Daniel. 2000. “Sermon: The Power of the Tongue—James 3:1-12.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 4:66-74.

Cummins, Tony. 2000. "Justifying James: Covenant Faithfulness in the Life and Letter of James." Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November, Nashville, TN.

Two Ways and the Prayer of Faith

Two of my Greek students are local pastors and one of them invited me to preach at the English service in the closest town. So I am preaching tomorrow in the town of Kainantu, Eastern Highlands Province, at the Evangelical Bible Church of Papua New Guinea.

My sermon title is "The Prayer of Faith" and I will be preaching mainly from the Letter of James.

Too often I hear Bible teaching which takes short passages out of context so that a works righteousness is emphasized. I aim to present what the Letter of James--the most works oriented writing in the New Testament--teaches about God's grace and mercy in response to prayers that reveal whole-hearted trust in him. I will present this within the context of the metaphor that our spiritual life is a journey in which we encounter two paths, the path of the wicked and the path of the righteous.

Besides the Letter of James, other scripture texts that will be included are Proverbs 2:1-15; 3:5-6; Psalm 1; 5:7-8; Isaiah 30:11, 15, 18; John 14:6; Luke 22:42; Hebrews 11:32-40.

Jesus' Resurrection is "Unbelievable!"

Luke records several incidents in ch. 24 in which the resurrection of Jesus seems to the disciples—according to traditional interpretation—just too good to be true. But when we compare Luke’s account with the other gospels, Luke emerges as the only gospel writer that presents the disciples’ response as one of amazement, that confused mixture of disbelief and joy. They might have said in the English idiom, “It’s unbelievable!” while at the same time feeling the joy that only comes from experiential knowledge.

The shorter ending of Mark (ending at 16:8) concludes the gospel story with a picture of the women trembling and astonished because they were afraid after seeing an angel who announced the resurrection.

On the other hand, the longer ending of Mark programmatically describes the unbelief of three sets of disciples: those who had been with Jesus (16:11), two of them as they were walking into the country (16:13), and the eleven as they sat together (16:14). Mark is the only gospel that presents such a one-sided picture of unbelief after the resurrection.

Matthew’s accounts of the disciples’ post-resurrection responses are brief and more balanced in terms of belief and unbelief. He first presents the women returning quickly from the tomb “with fear and great joy” to tell the disciples what they had seen and heard from the angel (28:8). The resurrected Jesus meets them on their way at which point Matthew records that they “took hold of his feet and worshipped him” (28:9).

The only other response from Jesus’ disciples that Matthew speaks of occurs when the disciples follow the instructions that the women have evidently passed on to them about meeting Jesus in Galilee: “And when they saw him they worshipped him; but some doubted” (28:17). So in Matthew, we have two responses of worship with the caveat that some doubted.

John presents much more detail than Matthew does concerning the believing responses of Jesus’ disciples after the resurrection. John’s first recorded response to the resurrection is one of belief and autobiographical: “Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed” (20:8). Likewise, when the risen Jesus greets Mary Magdalene by name, she responds with “Rabonni!” and goes to tell the disciples, “I have seen the Lord” (20:17-18). That same evening, Jesus appears to the disciples, and after he greets them with “Peace to you” and shows them his hands and his side, John records that “the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord” (20:19-20).

Thomas is the singular example in John of post-resurrection unbelief: “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe” (20:25). But eight days later, Jesus appears again to the disciples and says to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see my hands; and reach your hand here and put it into my side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” Thomas responded with “My Lord and my God!” (20:27-28)

A few more faith responses are recorded by John after Jesus instructs his disciples to cast their net on the other side of the boat and they haul in 153 large fish. Another autobiographical note includes John saying to Peter, “It is the Lord!” At that point Peter puts on his clothes and dives into the sea to go meet Jesus (21:7). When the rest of the disciples get to shore, John records, “Now none of the disciples dared to ask him, ‘Who are you?’ They knew it was the Lord” (21:12).

While the other gospel writers are more straightforward in their depictions of belief and unbelief after the resurrection, Luke’s distinctive voice presents a more varied and psychologically involved picture of the disciples’ responses. Luke’s story juxtaposes the language of “unbelief” at different times with the language of amazement, sadness, confusion, reasoning, and joy. Rather than uniformly understanding all the disciples to persist in unbelief, as the longer ending of Mark’s gospel suggests, Luke’s account shows in detail a variation of response among the disciples, just as we find more briefly and optimistically in Matthew and in John.

More on Luke's account of the "unbelievable" resurrection in the next post...

Mariam Kamell's Recent James Research

Looking at my friend Jim Darlack's blog over at Old in the New, I was reminded of another friend's recent research on the Letter of James. Mariam Kamell of The Greek Geek is writing her PhD thesis on James at St Andrews in Scotland. Her recent research on James includes...

Mariam J. Kamell. 2006. “The Word/Law in James as the Promised New Covenant.” Paper presented to the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 19, Washington D.C.

_______. 2006. “The Emergent Need For James.” Paper given at the Evangelical Theological Society Annual Meeting, November 15. Washington D.C.

_______. 2006. "The concept of 'faith' in Hebrews and James." Paper delivered at the St Andrews Conference on Hebrews and Theology, 19 July. University of St Andrews.

_______. 2003. Wisdom in James: An Examination and Comparison of the Roles of Wisdom and the Holy Spirit. M.A. thesis, Denver Seminary.

I was able to attend Mariam's presentation of her paper at the St Andrews Conference on Hebrews and Theology. It was really well received. I look forward to Mariam's dissertation and much more in the future.

Biblical Studies Carnival XXII at SansBlogue

Tim Bulkeley, Old Testament lecturer at Carey Baptist College in Auckland, New Zealand, has done a nice job of putting together the Biblical Studies Carnival XXII over at SansBlogue. He has divided the carnival up into the following categories...

• Biblioblogger of the month
• Biblical studies as an international discipline
• Bible in General
• Hebrew Bible
• The Other Testament
• Archaeology
• Astronomy (or Interdisciplinary studies?)
• Teaching
• Technology
• Writing and publishing
• Digital scholarship